AAARGH
[Note de
l'AAARGH: Finkelstein a un site web où l'on trouve le dossier
de son livre: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/index.html]
Last summer, after the initial publication of Norman Finkelstein's
THE HOLOCAUST INDUSTRY in English, there was said to be something
called a "Finkelstein debate" in Germany. Now that the
book has appeared in German translation, we will perhaps see this
renewed. But it is hard to know what there is in THE HOLOCAUST
INDUSTRY, then or now, that is "debatable."
Finkelstein's assertion that in negotiations with Swiss banks
and German industrial corporations inflated numbers were often
tossed around by claimants is hardly "debatable." It
is simply a FACT that this was the case--as is the fact that,
from the other side, deflated numbers were presented. Similarly,
it is an undebatable fact that heavy-handed pressure tactics were
sometimes employed on behalf of the claimants--a response to intransigence
and delaying tactics on the part of the banks and corporations.
One could certainly wish that the negotiations had been conducted
differently; wish, especially, that all these matters had been
disposed of decades ago. But they weren't: another undebatable
fact. In any case, all of this is widely known, and widely-deplored:
what was there, what is there, to debate?
As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning
reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the
appropriate response is not (exhilarating) "debate"
but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination
reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention.
Among his more startling claims is that the treasury of the World
Jewish Congress has "amassed no less than 'roughly $7 billion'
in compensation monies." Finkelstein's source for this startling
revelation is an article in FAZ which reported the very unstartling
fact that the WJC was holding discussions about how such monies
might be distributed IF AND WHEN THEY WERE RECEIVED. This is not
just carelessness on Finkelstein's part, since he KNEW when he
wrote the book that the WJC had not received ANY such funds: deliberate
deception. (Examples could be multiplied. No facts alleged by
Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation
in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the
time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.)
Or is the issue in the "Finkelstein Debate" his overall
thesis, of which the discussion of reparations and restitution
is merely an illustration? That larger thesis is clearly stated
in his book and is easily summarized. "American Jewish elites,"
Finkelstein argues, have cynically constructed a "Holocaust
Industry" to serve their selfish interests. To anyone familiar
with the author's lifelong crusade against Israel, it will come
as no surprise that first among these interests is to "justify
criminal policies of the Israeli state" But to credit "American
Jewish elites" with SINCERITY in their concern for Israel
would, in his view, be a mistake. In reality, he says, these elites
are merely sycophantic tools of American imperialism. They came
to support Israel only when it became a compliant tool of US policy-makers;
they
>would abandon immediately if it ceased to be an American "strategic
asset."
"The Holocaust Industry," Finkelstein tells us, also
serves domestic American purposes. Keeping alive the memory of
the Holocaust immunizes American Jews from "justified criticism"
for their shift rightward in recent years. But here too, we are
told, one should not credit "American Jewish elites"
with SINCERE concern for the well being
>or reputation of American Jewry: "If US ruling circles
decided to
scapegoat Jews, we should not be surprised if American Jewish
leaders acted exactly as their predecessors did during the Nazi
holocaust. . . . 'Jews would lead Jews to death.'"
The overall argument of Finkelstein's book is that "American
Jewish elites" conspire only in their private interest: to
line their own pockets and to facilitate their "entry into
the inner sanctums of American power." For these elites,
he tells us, "the Holocaust performed the same function as
Israel: another invaluable chip in a high-stakes power game."
For Finkelstein, it is only by acknowledging this long-standing
conspiracy of "Jewish elites" that one can REALLY understand
what was involved in reparations and restitution negotiations.
I had not thought that (apart from the disreputable fringe) there
were Germans who would take seriously this twenty-first century
updating of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I
was mistaken: last summer the reviewer for the FAZ compared the
book's author to Hannah Arendt; said that reading the book was
"like opening a window for a sudden gust of fresh air."
Understandably dismayed by this sort of response to Finkelstein's
book, there were those in Germany who said that it was "impermissible"
for Germans to discuss the questions which the book raised. As
an outsider, I hesitate to express an opinion on how Germans conduct
their public discourse, but I must say that I am opposed to their
ruling any subject "impermissible" or "out of bounds."
And this applies PARTICULARLY to subjects having to do with the
memory of the Holocaust.
Germany's relationship to the Holocaust and its memory is not
"given"--set in stone--but, must, like the relationship
between any collectivity and its memories, be the subject of continued
rethinking and renegotiation. Among American Jews, the rethinking
and renegotiation of how we handle the memory of the Holocaust
has been underway for some time, and it has been the occasion
of lively debate. Though obviously the two cases are very dissimilar,
many of the same issues arise. As the years pass, what should
change and what should stay the same in our relationship to the
memory? How does one steer a path between forgetfulness and obsession?
What should be the relative weight of this memory compared to
other memories of the collective past? If we've made mistakes
in how we've memorialized the Holocaust, how can we learn from
those mistakes and do better in the future?
On neither side of the Atlantic should discussion of any of these
issues be "impermissible." Indeed such discussions are
highly desirable. But Finkelstein's rant is not a contribution
to such discussions; it is a subtraction from them.
Afficher un texte sur le Web équivaut à mettre un document sur le rayonnage d'une bibliothèque publique. Cela nous coûte un peu d'argent et de travail. Nous pensons que c'est le lecteur volontaire qui en profite et nous le supposons capable de penser par lui-même. Un lecteur qui va chercher un document sur le Web le fait toujours à ses risques et périls. Quant à l'auteur, il n'y a pas lieu de supposer qu'il partage la responsabilité des autres textes consultables sur ce site. En raison des lois qui instituent une censure spécifique dans certains pays (Allemagne, France, Israël, Suisse, Canada, et d'autres), nous ne demandons pas l'agrément des auteurs qui y vivent car ils ne sont pas libres de consentir.
Nous nous plaçons sous
la protection de l'article 19 de la Déclaration des Droits
de l'homme, qui stipule:
ARTICLE 19
<Tout individu a droit à la liberté d'opinion
et d'expression, ce qui implique le droit de ne pas être
inquiété pour ses opinions et celui de chercher,
de recevoir et de répandre, sans considération de
frontière, les informations et les idées par quelque
moyen d'expression que ce soit>
Déclaration internationale des droits de l'homme,
adoptée par l'Assemblée générale de
l'ONU à Paris, le 10 décembre 1948.
Ce document : http://aaargh-international.org/fran/div/racket/holindustry/novickeng.html>